Just three days after the Motion Picture Association of America brought a civil lawsuit against Megaupload, the Recording Industry Association of America has jumped in with its own case.

In addition to the existing criminal copyright infringement case being prosecuted by the Justice Department in the Eastern District of Virginia, the Thursday lawsuit now brings to three the number of lawsuits filed against Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and his colleagues.

Dotcom and the others were initially arrested in a botched January 2012 raid on his mansion estate in New Zealand. He has since been fighting local authorities to prevent his extradition to the United States—that trial could be held as early as July.

“Our first response is that the RIAA, the MPAA, and the DOJ are like three blind mice following each other in the pursuit of meritless copyright claims,” said Ira Rothken, Dotcom's California-based attorney. “We believe that the claims against Megaupload are really an assault by Hollywood on cloud storage in general as Megaupload used copyright neutral technology and whatever allegations they can make against Megaupload they can make against YouTube, Dropbox, and others. And we believe that at the end of the day that the court will find their claims to be without merit and that the court will find that Megaupload and the others will prevail.”

Coldplay, Nickelback, and Jay-Z

The allegations in the RIAA's 30-page complaint are similar to previous accusations listed in the MPAA and criminal case. It alleges direct copyright infringement and inducement of copyright infringement, among other things.

As the RIAA suit states:

To ensure a vast and ever-growing supply of popular copyrighted content to which they could sell premium access, Defendants paid users to upload popular content to Megaupload’s servers. Defendants’ Uploader Rewards program promised premium subscribers cash and other financial incentives if they uploaded popular works, primarily copyrighted works, to Megaupload’s servers. The rewards program also encouraged users to publicly promote links to that content, so that the content would be widely downloaded.

Although the Uploader Rewards program’s financial incentives changed over the life of Megaupload, during the time period most relevant to this Complaint, Defendants offered one reward point each time that a user’s file was downloaded, and offered the user rewards ranging from free premium membership subscriptions all the way to cash awards of as much as $10,000.

The suit includes a long list of 87 songs the recording industry said were available on Megaupload, including titles by Kings of Leon, Pink, Shakira, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Coldplay, Nickelback, and Jay-Z, among others.

“We filed the suit for several reasons, one of them being that the DOJ recently released specific evidence in the case that we reviewed and found to be compelling enough to bring a civil suit since it made clear that massive copyright infringement of music had taken place,” Cara Duckworth Weiblinger, an RIAA spokesperson, told Ars via e-mail. “Also, the statute of limitations was a factor that we had to consider in our decision on whether or not to bring a civil suit.”

She added that there was “no relationship/help” with respect to the federal criminal case against Megaupload, and she noted: “There wasn’t much of a relationship with MPAA either except that their copyright infringement issues are similar to ours.”

Stay with me

Megaupload’s counsel strongly denied Megaupload’s culpability.

“There were strict prohibitions that rewards programs users had to agree to where they promised not to infringe on copyright and the amount of money paid out in the rewards program was so small that it was a rounding error on Megaupload’s total revenue,” Rothken added, noting that the rewards system was ended “approximately six months” before the indictment as it “wasn’t very useful.”

“Megaupload had in place a robust notice and takedown system,” he said, a proposition federal authorities strongly dispute.

Rothken declined to state precisely how much that “rounding error” was, but federal authorities have accused Dotcom of making $175 million.

For now though, Rothken expects the MPAA and RIAA suits to be put on hold, as was the first civil case filed against Megaupload in March 2012.

US District Judge Liam O’Grady stayedMicrohits et al v. Megaupload et al earlier this year—as of now, that order will expire on August 1, 2014. That case was also filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, the same federal district where the MPAA and now the RIAA suits were filed.

“We expect that the MPAA and the RIAA actions will be stayed because the evidence that’s needed to prosecute and defend the cases are stuck in servers that are being held in a secure warehouse in a Virginia by [Megaupload’s online host] Carpathia, so that creates logistical issues,” Rothken concluded.

If you've watched law and order, they often bring this up with regards to crimes against minors and the statue of limitations applies after they reach adult hood, rather than from the point in time it happened.

The basic gist is that someone shouldn't be in fear all their life that they stole a candy bar from the grocery store when they were 10 and be arrested for it when they are 90 years old in flordia.

"She added that there was “no relationship/help” with respect to the federal criminal case against Megaupload"

So the DOJ raided Mega based not on your allegations?Like when they took out several other sites well outside of US Jurisdiction, played games with the law while waiting for you to provide the evidence you never had to make the case?

Like DaJaz1, where your membership sent them the tracks and told them to post them to be shared... and you had the site taken down, delayed their day in court while the DOJ waited for you to provide the evidence they used to take it down?

Mega was raided to give you the evidence you claimed you had in the first place.Funny how you can get access but thousands of innocents can't get access to their files because your screaming.

And isn't this the 3&4th lawsuits against Mega, the first 2 being stupid one from companies no one had ever heard of trying to get a payday?

"She added that there was “no relationship/help” with respect to the federal criminal case against Megaupload"

So the DOJ raided Mega based not on your allegations?Like when they took out several other sites well outside of US Jurisdiction, played games with the law while waiting for you to provide the evidence you never had to make the case?

Like DaJaz1, where your membership sent them the tracks and told them to post them to be shared... and you had the site taken down, delayed their day in court while the DOJ waited for you to provide the evidence they used to take it down?

Mega was raided to give you the evidence you claimed you had in the first place.Funny how you can get access but thousands of innocents can't get access to their files because your screaming.

And isn't this the 3&4th lawsuits against Mega, the first 2 being stupid one from companies no one had ever heard of trying to get a payday?

If you've watched law and order, they often bring this up with regards to crimes against minors and the statue of limitations applies after they reach adult hood, rather than from the point in time it happened.

The basic gist is that someone shouldn't be in fear all their life that they stole a candy bar from the grocery store when they were 10 and be arrested for it when they are 90 years old in flordia.

A candy? this guy got mega rich profiting from copyrighted works . He was quite confident of the way he systematically was exploiting the legal loop

The DMCA safe harbor is not a “legal loop[hole]”. It is a deliberate and absolutely vital provision of law, without which no Web site accepting content from its users could exist for fear of liability for copyright infringement. If it were repealed, YouTube, Dropbox, and perhaps even this very forum would have to be shut down.

A candy? this guy got mega rich profiting from copyrighted works . He was quite confident of the way he systematically was exploiting the legal loop

While this is of course debatable, it's got nothing to do with what the person you quoted was saying. He was just explaining what "Statue of Limitations" is. Though, he didn't actually give how many years the statue of limitations is for whatever it is Megaupload's being charged with...Googling "statue of limitations copyright infringement" though, leads me to believe it's 3 years.

If you've watched law and order, they often bring this up with regards to crimes against minors and the statue of limitations applies after they reach adult hood, rather than from the point in time it happened.

The basic gist is that someone shouldn't be in fear all their life that they stole a candy bar from the grocery store when they were 10 and be arrested for it when they are 90 years old in flordia.

A candy? this guy got mega rich profiting from copyrighted works . He was quite confident of the way he systematically was exploiting the legal loop

It was an example, I could of just as easily said participating the oceans 15 and robbing the great state of Nevada of all it's money in all it's casinos... an answer to the question of "what is the statute of limitations?" essentially isn't a commentary on Kim Dot com...

So how does the statute of limitations work? It seems really strange to me that a lawsuit can be filed >2 years after the website was shut down and servers were seized.

I'm pretty sure that the case was filed when the raid occurred. The clock on any limitations stops when the case is filed, regardless of how long it takes to get to trial after that.

It's been 2 years because Kim has been fighting extradition and filing all sorts of other pre-trial motions. All that has to be sorted out before the trial can begin. In big and complicated cases like this, a gap of several years from filing to the final trial is pretty normal. Delay usually works for the defendant as long as the defendant isn't in pre-trial custody, so defense lawyers will try to add as much as they can if they are planning to go to trial. Given all the issues involved here, I'd expect more motions and appeals before any trial happens, assuming that extradition actually occurs.

This, by the way, is why you don't ever want to come to the attention of the law. Even if you can prove that you didn't do whatever they say you did, you'll be working on that for years and years.

Where is megaupload incorporated at ? New Zealand,or the U.S. ? Why did the DOJ file from a eastern virginia district , instead of some federal district ? Because the 'Carpathia Servers are there ? There is other persons data on those servers ? RIAA,MPAA,and DOJ wants first dibs ?

Doesn't look good for New Zealand. Americans aren't going to take very well to having their online stuff raided like this. I really question the validity of any fair-use property,in which the security of them were brought public by a DOJ raid. RIAA MPAA,and DOJ are a bunch of wankers. When that is what they would like to achieve as a public service.

That is the question of the day. Its not about copyright folks. Its about having civil liability for broken security of fair-use. Which is my question. Maybe not megauploads qeustion. I dont believe I need RIAA,MPAA,and DOJ to troubleshoot it for the public.

If you've watched law and order, they often bring this up with regards to crimes against minors and the statue of limitations applies after they reach adult hood, rather than from the point in time it happened.

The basic gist is that someone shouldn't be in fear all their life that they stole a candy bar from the grocery store when they were 10 and be arrested for it when they are 90 years old in flordia.

A candy? this guy got mega rich profiting from copyrighted works . He was quite confident of the way he systematically was exploiting the legal loop

It was an example, I could of just as easily said participating the oceans 15 and robbing the great state of Nevada of all it's money in all it's casinos... an answer to the question of "what is the statute of limitations?" essentially isn't a commentary on Kim Dot com...

If you've watched law and order, they often bring this up with regards to crimes against minors and the statue of limitations applies after they reach adult hood, rather than from the point in time it happened.

The basic gist is that someone shouldn't be in fear all their life that they stole a candy bar from the grocery store when they were 10 and be arrested for it when they are 90 years old in flordia.

A candy? this guy got mega rich profiting from copyrighted works . He was quite confident of the way he systematically was exploiting the legal loop

The DMCA safe harbor is not a “legal loop[hole]”. It is a deliberate and absolutely vital provision of law, without which no Web site accepting content from its users could exist for fear of liability for copyright infringement. If it were repealed, YouTube, Dropbox, and perhaps even this very forum would have to be shut down.

Safe Harbor doesn't apply here. Aside from the fact that he knew what was going on, every locker service that doesn't pay RIAA royalties has lost in court. I don't like it, but that doesn't change the case law.

It doesn't matter that megaupload was incorporated in Hong Kong. They did business in the US, and therefore have to follow US law.

The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA don't apply here, as some pretty damning e-mails have proven that megaupload knew their service was being used to illegally share particular works, and they did not take action to stop it (in fact, they rewarded a number of the people they had actual knowledge of infringement with cash payments!)

DOJ seems very eager to jump on cases where it has corporate sponsors. But not so eager when it comes to helping average citizens with the abuse by the industry.

How about investigating Comcast NBC merger FCC Chair Meredith Attwell Baker?After Approving a Merger for Comcast and NBC she "conviently" became a board member.

That is a pure 100% conflict of interest especially by allowing these 2 industries to merge. They can more easily make the environment much more hostile for consumers then it already is.

The MPAA and RIAA role in the attampted arrested of Kim Dotcom should first be investigated. If they had a hand in financing it, the entire board should be arrested and tried with all agencies associated with them. Corporate influence on government proceedings should be stopped at all costs.

Im thinkin with this,when somebody uploaded something and it was said to be 'downloaded',it was actually something that was 'viewed' -via a web flash content thing. ? Or it was actually full file downloaded . Then the stuff that was uploaded was both authorized,and unauthorized content from stuff that was grabbed off of the tv screens ?

Then viewed worldwide via the web. The content was user generated,and viewed with a flash generated viewing. The user generated content was mostly stuff grabed from TV screens. ? Links to users files,where distributed between account holders of megaupload. Megaupload, had advertisers,and sponsors.

And Megaupload had many take down notices for links to the user generated content.

Certainly can't get enough tv in the third world. TV with Flash thats even a little better.

It doesn't matter that megaupload was incorporated in Hong Kong. They did business in the US, and therefore have to follow US law.

The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA don't apply here, as some pretty damning e-mails have proven that megaupload knew their service was being used to illegally share particular works, and they did not take action to stop it (in fact, they rewarded a number of the people they had actual knowledge of infringement with cash payments!)

No, they really don't. The company they leased the servers from used servers in Virginia, but are not primarily based in the US. And the DMCA absolutely does apply, seeing as that evidence was obtained unlawfully, as ruled by the Supreme Court of NZ. 'Poisoned fruit' doctrine applies, and thus the evidence is inadmissible.

In addition, by your logic, Twitter should be bound by Turkish law or Chinese law, as they have services specifically operated in those countries. This seems...less than wise.

This is nothing more than an appearance to be SEEN as doing something, rather than actualy doing something. Remember, this is the fourth consecutive year the MPAA has held up record numbers at the box office. The top 10 most infringed films had nine of the highest-grossing films of that year, by the MPAA's own numbers. So for them to argue that Dotcom cost them untold millions is both asinine on its face and disingenuous of its intent.

I have moved on to better sources of music. I seem to find most of the music I like on sound cloud from people who are nobodies. Some of the tracks are free to download without legal consequences because it is freely available from the creator with out an evil publisher behind them.

The days of needing to own your music is long gone with services like last.fm, iHeart radio, Pandora, Spotify, and soundcloud to name a few.

"She added that there was “no relationship/help” with respect to the federal criminal case against Megaupload"

So the DOJ raided Mega based not on your allegations?Like when they took out several other sites well outside of US Jurisdiction, played games with the law while waiting for you to provide the evidence you never had to make the case?

Like DaJaz1, where your membership sent them the tracks and told them to post them to be shared... and you had the site taken down, delayed their day in court while the DOJ waited for you to provide the evidence they used to take it down?

Mega was raided to give you the evidence you claimed you had in the first place.Funny how you can get access but thousands of innocents can't get access to their files because your screaming.

And isn't this the 3&4th lawsuits against Mega, the first 2 being stupid one from companies no one had ever heard of trying to get a payday?

The DOJ often does stuff on its own. It is their job to charge people without being prompted.

For example Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for 13 crimes against MIT. The entire thing happened without any involvement from MIT, except for initially reporting the event as breaking and entering, and providing information the feds asked for.

I don't know if the MPAA/RIAA are involved in the criminal case, but it's entirely plausible that they are not.

So how does the statute of limitations work? It seems really strange to me that a lawsuit can be filed >2 years after the website was shut down and servers were seized.

For federal, the statute of limitations for civil copyright infringement is three years but application is determined by the rule applied, either the injury rule or the discovery rule;

The discovery rule: The statute of limitations for civil copyright infringement is three years from when the infringement is discovered by the plaintiff, or should have been discovered with reasonable diligence by the plaintiff, not from when the infringement actually happened. Under the discovery rule statute of limitations applies to discovery vs filing not when the infringement actually happened. (“cause of action accrues ‘when the plaintiff discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered, the injury that forms the basis for the claim.’”)

The injury rule: The statute of limitations for civil copyright infringement starts when the actual offense happened and the lawsuit has to be filed within three years of that actual infringement happening. ("a cause of action accrues at the time of the injury")

In the continuing (sometimes termed "repeat") civil infringement, “each act of infringement is a distinct harm giving rise to an independent claim for relief.”. Under the discovery rule for civil copyright infringement, the infringement could have actually happened, for example, five years ago but was detected only today so the party to bring the suit would have three years from today to file and the lawsuit proceeds. Under the injury rule for civil copyright infringement if, for example, the infringement happened five years ago from today then the statute of limitations expired two years ago and no lawsuit proceeds. However, with continuing infringement under both rules its possible to have multiple statute of limitations periods, one for each separate act of infringement, in one case so its possible an infringement accused entity could be tied up in lawsuit for a long time way beyond the statute of limitations period for a single or sometimes multiple infringement for which the statute of limitations has expired.

Nine federal courts of appeals have applied the discovery rule to civil actions under the Copyright Act, and the discovery rule is the prevailing rule applied. To avoid lost cases or case rejection either initially or on appeal due to expired statute of limitations, the lawsuit is generally originally filed within the three years from date of the infringement happening based upon the injury rule principal of "a cause of action accrues at the time of the injury" so any likely hood of a case getting rejected or case loss due to an expired statute of limitations is nullified.

For federal, the statute of limitations for criminal copyright infringement starts five years from the date of the actual offense.

A criminal case has no bearing for determining the statute of limitations for civil copyright infringement.

I assume NZ now knows well what is is harboring and he will be returned to the U.S. later this year.

NZ is not harboring anyone he is a citizen there. And I guess that the extradition will be hard to do since the NZ government went and spied on him at the behest of the US copyright interests (Including the raid). That I believe is what you call parallel construction and in my opinion makes some if not all the evidence inadmissible (I guess many motions filed will be regarding this) The NZ government might have to thread more carefully to be able to extradite Mr. Dotcom. (I'm not a lawyer so my opinion could be entirely wrong)

"She added that there was “no relationship/help” with respect to the federal criminal case against Megaupload"

So the DOJ raided Mega based not on your allegations?Like when they took out several other sites well outside of US Jurisdiction, played games with the law while waiting for you to provide the evidence you never had to make the case?

Like DaJaz1, where your membership sent them the tracks and told them to post them to be shared... and you had the site taken down, delayed their day in court while the DOJ waited for you to provide the evidence they used to take it down?

Mega was raided to give you the evidence you claimed you had in the first place.Funny how you can get access but thousands of innocents can't get access to their files because your screaming.

And isn't this the 3&4th lawsuits against Mega, the first 2 being stupid one from companies no one had ever heard of trying to get a payday?

The DOJ often does stuff on its own. It is their job to charge people without being prompted.

For example Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for 13 crimes against MIT. The entire thing happened without any involvement from MIT, except for initially reporting the event as breaking and entering, and providing information the feds asked for.

I don't know if the MPAA/RIAA are involved in the criminal case, but it's entirely plausible that they are not.

Can't really say that MIT was not involved since they reported it, the DOJ doesn't start investigations unless someone makes an allegation first.

I am not a fan of Kim Dotcom, but this whole case is just so poorly done it has become obvious that the US DOJ is no more than a pawn for the big media people who want to take him down no matter if they have a real case or not. And are willing to make a mockery of US NZ and international laws. Even after they have been shown how screwed up the case is, the DOJ somehow feels they must go through with prosecuting him as that will somehow vindicate their high handed action in breaking the laws they have already broken trying to get him to trial. And once they do get him to trial, there is no way they can allow him to walk as that would show they spent millions of US taxpayer money to persecute a foreign national who wasn't breaking any laws in his own country. In their minds, the US DOJ can do no wrong and trumps ALL other law no matter what.

It doesn't matter that megaupload was incorporated in Hong Kong. They did business in the US, and therefore have to follow US law.

The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA don't apply here, as some pretty damning e-mails have proven that megaupload knew their service was being used to illegally share particular works, and they did not take action to stop it (in fact, they rewarded a number of the people they had actual knowledge of infringement with cash payments!)

I disagree. Every website in the world is available to the US, does that mean that every company in the world is subject to US law?

It doesn't matter that megaupload was incorporated in Hong Kong. They did business in the US, and therefore have to follow US law.

The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA don't apply here, as some pretty damning e-mails have proven that megaupload knew their service was being used to illegally share particular works, and they did not take action to stop it (in fact, they rewarded a number of the people they had actual knowledge of infringement with cash payments!)

I disagree. Every website in the world is available to the US, does that mean that every company in the world is subject to US law?

A company entity, even a foreign company entity, is subject to U.S. law for any financial transaction or thing to do with that transaction, conducted in or through the United States. Its the same in 90% of other countries as well for subjecting the company entity, even a foreign company entity, to the laws of that country for any financial transaction, or things to do with that transaction, conducted in or through that country. For those transactions or things to do with those transactions the DMCA doesn't apply. DotCom through the "Mega enterprises", because DotCom is the primary business entity of the "Mega enterprises", conducted financial transactions in or through the U.S. so is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. He, as a business entity, leased servers in the U.S. and used pay services based in the U.S. that involved and supported the payments or income made concerning the infringing material. The servers were a thing having to so with those financial transactions because the servers supported that enterprise infringement and provided a vehicle by which that infringement occurred for those payments or income concerning the infringement. Thus the criminal case

Payment for, or income from, infringement also applies to civil copyright infringement but is generally applied in a different context dealing primarily with the infringement its self with the payment or income being secondary to the infringement instead of the main reason as its enough in a civil infringement lawsuit to show the infringement happened to a reasonable degree and motive (payment or income is financial motive) isn't needed to be proven in a civil infringement lawsuit. Its possible a DMCA argument could have weight but if financial transactions for or concerning the infringing material in or through the U.S were involved the DMCA would not apply as one can not effectively claim DMCA protection while paying people for, or making income as a result of, the infringing material.

DMCA is negated as a protection defense as DMCA does not protect payment for, or income from, conducting or inducing infringement. That's essentially basically part of what DotCom is accused of, payment for, or income from, infringement.

Now it remains for the government to prove their criminal case, and for the MPAA and RIAA to prove their civil case.

"She added that there was “no relationship/help” with respect to the federal criminal case against Megaupload"

So the DOJ raided Mega based not on your allegations?Like when they took out several other sites well outside of US Jurisdiction, played games with the law while waiting for you to provide the evidence you never had to make the case?

Like DaJaz1, where your membership sent them the tracks and told them to post them to be shared... and you had the site taken down, delayed their day in court while the DOJ waited for you to provide the evidence they used to take it down?

Mega was raided to give you the evidence you claimed you had in the first place.Funny how you can get access but thousands of innocents can't get access to their files because your screaming.

And isn't this the 3&4th lawsuits against Mega, the first 2 being stupid one from companies no one had ever heard of trying to get a payday?

The DOJ often does stuff on its own. It is their job to charge people without being prompted.

For example Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for 13 crimes against MIT. The entire thing happened without any involvement from MIT, except for initially reporting the event as breaking and entering, and providing information the feds asked for.

I don't know if the MPAA/RIAA are involved in the criminal case, but it's entirely plausible that they are not.

You might want to read the report about what MIT had going on there. Several of their staff were cheering DoJ on. Several of them went above and beyond in a case where MIT claims they didn't want to proceed.

Even with the 'former' BSA lawyer running the show, the case came from somewhere.There are several cases in recent history where DoJ started cases based on complaints from the **AA's, and the **AA's left them hanging when it came time to present actual evidence in court.Indict a ham sandwich is the claim.https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=dajaz1

Offline for over a year while DoJ waited, like a fat girl on prom night for the quarterback to pick her up, for the RIAA to actually turn over any evidence to support the claims that they used to shut down the blog. Only after it got really stupid did they finally turn it back over, because the case had no merit and people were watching.

Rojadirecta. 18 months trying to pretend US law applies in another country... the case sure appeased the cartels but did little for the reputation of the US, other than reinforce the idea that we think we are the law of the globe and are in the back pocket of cartels.https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=rojadirecta

Kim Dotcom & MegaUpload. 1000's of posts online about he is fat, he is a felon, he is getting what he deserves.... ignoring the simple fact that cheerleading the violations of the law makes it worse for everyone. He might be a shitty poster child, but doesn't he deserve fair treatment under the law? Congress recently got a taste of what happens when you do this. DiFi is all bent because they spied on her, but had no problem when she thought it was everyone BUT her.

This case is a crock. It was meant to send a message that the cartels can move on any company and vanish them on a whim. Look at the Hotfile case, clear evidence that the DMCA takedown system the cartels demanded was abused... but no punishment for that. They law is what they say it is, and never applies to them. Perhaps if we purged all of the 'former' cartel employees from DoJ we might get them to deal with actual crimes... rather than just refuse to bring a case and then get a cushy job with who you were supposed to investigate.

We have the best Justice system money can buy, perhaps we should get a refund of what they take from us... they no longer represent our best interests.

I think the DOJ should take a backseat here and let the **AAs do the heavy lifting. If and only if a good case can be made then get involved. Dotcom is slimy but it does not make the unholy crusade from the AAs any better.

It doesn't matter that megaupload was incorporated in Hong Kong. They did business in the US, and therefore have to follow US law.

The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA don't apply here, as some pretty damning e-mails have proven that megaupload knew their service was being used to illegally share particular works, and they did not take action to stop it (in fact, they rewarded a number of the people they had actual knowledge of infringement with cash payments!)

I disagree. Every website in the world is available to the US, does that mean that every company in the world is subject to US law?

A company entity, even a foreign company entity, is subject to U.S. law for any financial transaction or thing to do with that transaction, conducted in or through the United States. Its the same in 90% of other countries as well for subjecting the company entity, even a foreign company entity, to the laws of that country for any financial transaction, or things to do with that transaction, conducted in or through that country. For those transactions or things to do with those transactions, the DMCA doesn't apply. DotCom through the "Mega enterprises", because DotCom is the primary business entity of the "Mega enterprises", conducted financial transactions in or through the U.S. so is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. He, as a business entity, leased servers in the U.S. and used pay services based in the U.S. that involved and supported the payments or income made concerning the infringing material and the servers supported that enterprise.

If there had been no payments (or income) to others concerning infringing material then maybe some argument of the DMCA could apply, but once there was that financial transaction happened in or through the U.S. it became criminal copyright infringement and thus the criminal case.

payment for, or income from, infringement also applies to civil copyright infringement but is applied in a different context dealing primarily with the infringement its self so its possible a DMCA argument could have weight but if financial transactions for or concerning the infringing material in or through the U.S were involved the DMCA would not apply as one can not effectively claim DMCA protection while paying people for, or making income as a result of, the infringing material.

DMCA is negated as a protection defense as DMCA does not protect payment for, or income from, infringement. That's essentially basically what DotCom is accused of, payment for, or income from, infringement.

Now it remains for the government to prove their criminal case, and for the MPAA and RIAA to prove their civil case.

Then why wait twenty-seven months before doing anything? The DoJ committed criminal acts in the pursuit of Dotcom, they intentionally tainted evidence by illegally, as found in a court of law, removing the context with the assistance of a private entity (NZFACT, which is NOT a government agency) in the raid, along with an FBI agent on the ground at the compound (in spite of the fact that the FBI's province wsi within the federal jurisdiction, and not extra-national).

IT just smacks of corporate bullying, and doesn't actually endear anyone ot their cause.